The View From 1776

-------------------
In a world of atheistic materialism, aka liberal-socialism, there are no rules, no sin, just Darwinian survival of the fittest.  In literary and philosophical circles, this is called nihilism; make up the rules as you go, and anything goes if you can get away with it.

Nihilism is the position forthrightly advanced by the Washington Post and the New York Times to defend their many publications of classified, national security information. 

The liberal party line is that the press is above the law, because it is the embodiment of free speech.  Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, acknowledged that the administration “argued strongly that writing about this [NSA international phone call monitoring program] .... would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country’s security.”

Undeterred, Mr. Keller is sure that much of what is classified by the government need not be so and that members of the liberal-socialist media are better-positioned to understand the national security interests of the United States than is the Bush administration.  Editorial boards of the Times and the Washington Post are therefore entitled to make their own decisions about what constitutes “all the news fit to print.”

Reader Mark Van Noy untangles their twisted rationalizations.

*******************

LEAKING, WHISTLE-BLOWING, AND TREASON

By Mark Van Noy

There has been a great deal of discussion of Mary McCarthy and her communication of classified information to Dana Priest, a reporter for the Washington Post.  Those with anti-Bush administration political leanings have arisen in full force to defend her act, referring to it in various euphemistic terms, such as “leaking” and “whistle-blowing."  However, this manner of equivocation, rationalization, and apology is disingenuous.  Worse, it serves to excuse a real crime, one with potential deadly consequence, by draping it in the mantle of respectability accorded to “whistle-blowers” or by casually dismissing with “it’s only a leak and leaks happen in Washington all the time."  Neither is true in this case.  For these and numerous reasons, it appears that it would be useful to explore the matter via a somewhat more rational path.  Thus, in order to intelligently discuss the matter, it is appropriate to review the terms being used, so we can arrive at a sensible conclusion.

First, it is instructive to understand how a person is authorized access to classified information.

If a person needs access to classified information as part of his job he must have two things in order to be lawfully allowed access to that information:  1)  A security clearance that equals or exceeds the classification of the information and 2) a need to know the information.  BOTH of these requirements must be met.  

As part of his security clearance, each person is given detailed instruction on requirements of the law and his responsibility regarding proper handling of classified information.  These are quite strict, detailed instructions and no one could remain unclear after receiving them.  Anyone who purposely divulges classified information for any reason whatsoever has committed a federal felony crime.  

Now that we have established a basic understanding of rules governing access to classified information, we can explore “whistle-blowing,” “leaking,” and the term “treason."  

So, what is “whistle-blowing,” what is “leaking,” what is treason, and how do we know the difference?  

“Whistle-blowing” is the act of revealing to the PROPER AUTHORITIES (not the media) that people in an organization are committing illegal or unethical acts.  This could happen in private industry but since this discussion revolves around the CIA “leaks” let’s focus on the government.  There are confidential channels provided to every federal employee, including those in NSA, CIA, FBI, NRC, et al, for them to report crimes and to allow such reports to be investigated by independent agents to establish whether the allegations are true while carefully protecting the identity of the “whistle-blower.”  

Regardless of the opinions of an individual employee, there are often valid reasons for a situation he perceives as illegal or unethical.  Let’s explore a hypothetical example.

A new employee of a grocery store in New York City sees a well-dressed man enter the store, take an item of food from the shelf, eat it and leave the store without paying.  He reports this “crime” to a nearby police officer who immediately apprehends the man.  Upon investigation, the officer determines that the man in question is the owner of the store.  Therefore, although the new employee was absolutely certain that he had witnessed a crime he didn’t know all the facts so, regardless of how strongly he believed that a crime had been committed, there was no crime.  He’s embarrassed but the owner is not offended and commends the employee for his diligence.  However, let’s say that the employee, instead of simply reporting his perceived “crime” to a nearby police officer (a proper authority) and is then embarrassed by his ignorance, he takes a photograph of the man “stealing” the food and gives it to his friend who is a reporter for the New York Times (not a proper authority).  The reporter, without checking his facts (perish the thought) runs with the story.  He finds that the man is president of a huge bank of international fame, but his cursory investigation doesn’t reveal that the man also owns the grocery store.  His editor prints a three-inch headline, “International Bank President Caught Stealing,” along with a photograph of the man “stealing” the food.  The employee loses his job for his lack of good judgment but the store owner’s reputation is indelibly besmirched.  The NYT prints a one-line retraction at the bottom of the classified advertisement page.

This is often the case with whistle-blowing.  An employee’s ignorance does not make a legitimate act into a crime or unethical conduct.  Investigators will determine circumstances and take action where real crimes are discovered or not take action when investigation reveals that there is no crime.  In either case, the informant is advised of the result of the investigation, at which time he may choose to proceed with other actions and still remain within legal channels.  If this program is not used, the status of “whistle-blower” becomes an excuse for ad hoc declassification of classified information at the whim of any employee.  If allowed, this would compromise our national security in a way that we could not survive.

“Leaking” is the act of communicating confidential (not officially classified) information to those from whom it was intended to be kept.  For instance, when a political aide whispers to a reporter that the politician for whom he works is having an affair and that this politician intends to meet his paramour for a tryst on a private yacht called, let’s say, the “Monkey Business,” this is a “leak."  “Leaks” are for money, for spite, for political espionage, or for other reasons, but they specifically do not involve communication of officially classified information.

“Treason” is the CRIME of betraying one’s country ... for any reason and by any means whatsoever.  Officially classified information is assigned its status in order to protect our national security.  Protecting our national security is directly related to protecting the lives and freedom of American citizens, our livelihoods, our property, and our way of life.   When a person who is privy to officially classified information knowingly communicates that classified information to any other person who is not authorized access to that information he has betrayed his country, which is treason.  

When someone commits treason, his rationale for it does not change his crime into a euphemistic, lesser act, such as “leaking” or “whistle-blowing.”  Semantics do not change the crime or bring to life those killed by such treachery.  Ethel and Julius Rosenberg gave our nuclear bomb secrets to the Soviets.  The Rosenbergs were motivated by a deeply held desire to “save the world by aiding triumph of the socialist proletariat over the capitalist bourgeoisie."  This did not excuse their crime. It was still treason.  Hitler’s “good intentions” (as he saw them) did not change his horrendous crimes against humanity into something good.  Saddam Hussein truly believes in his warped, psychopathic mind that he was justified in torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of people because he “is President of Iraq."  This does not alter his guilt nor reduce his accountability for his crimes.  

Nor does it matter that Mary McCarthy believes she was justified in “blowing the whistle on George W. Bush and his evil administration."  She still betrayed her country by revealing classified information to our enemies in time of war.  Regardless of her political notions, she is guilty and accountable for her crimes.  She is guilty of treason.  For her heinous disregard for the lives of others in the pursuit of her personal political agenda and for the crime of treason she is guilty under the laws of the United States and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Visit MoveOff Network Members